The Tribune

By DEREK SMITH

The connection between client onboarding and reputation is often under-estimated. While many companies treat this process as an administrative stage that follows commercial success, this discussion refers to the onboarding of clients, institutional partners or strategic stakeholders, and the transition from agreement to active engagement. In practice, this phase is not operational housekeeping but, rather, the first visible test of institutional credibility. When execution deteriorates at this stage, reputational risk accumulates long before corporate executives become aware of it.

This article examines why onboarding failures erode confidence disproportionately. It also examines how execution gaps escalate into governance exposure, and why ownership of onboarding is now a strategic necessity rather than a functional detail.

Onboarding delays are structural signals

It is common to measure client onboarding efficiency based on speed, volume and completion rates. There is a problem with that framing, as a stakeholder's perception of a company’s health is tied to its onboarding behaviour. Speed and clarity may signal control, but delays and inconsistency also signal fragility. Moreover, friction during execution is rarely dramatic. Symptoms include repeated documentation requests, unclear decision rights, inconsistent communication or unexplained pauses. While individually each issue appears manageable, collectively, they form a pattern. Patterns shape perception, and perception shapes trust. Furthermore, the critical error that management executives make is assuming that goodwill accumulated during acquisition offsets onboarding friction. In reality, onboarding is where expectations are tested. If a company cannot execute its first structured commitment smoothly, stakeholders question its ability to execute more complex commitments later. If the service is not up to a credible standard, it is perceived as a problem and erodes confidence in the firm.

Operational friction becomes governance risk

Onboarding breakdowns expose deeper organisational weaknesses. They include where ownership is unclear, escalation paths are undefined and reporting is incomplete. In these situations, speed is not the issue but, rather, structural alignment.

Onboarding risks are often encountered indirectly by Boards. Complaints rise. The escalation process bypasses the normal channels. Many executives spend disproportionate amounts of time resolving problems that could have been prevented. At this point, onboarding has crossed over into governance territory. There is more to governance than policies and oversight committees. As a measure, it is based on whether the company behaves predictably in routine stress situations.

Further complications arise from the siloed incentive structures. The success of commercial teams is measured by their acquisitions. Operational teams are evaluated based on their processing performance. Neither party is fully responsible for the transition between promise and delivery. It is in the gap between those incentives where reputation deteriorates. Simply put, onboarding reveals whether leadership alignment is real or rhetorical.

Why leadership must own the onboarding

Onboarding should not be considered merely a ‘back office’ task but, rather, a strategic control point where it validates claims about competence, co-ordination and reliability.

While some may consider process redesign the 'fix', this writer argues that growth ambitions must reflect a company’s execution capacity, yielding a holistic, consistently positive stakeholder experience. This leads executives to confront a hard question. When onboarding fails, is the issue procedural or is it tolerance for ambiguity and diffuse accountability? Management must own the process because, without behavioural correction, existing processes produce the same friction.

In summary, rethink onboarding as a visible measure of company discipline and leadership alignment. This is because it reveals whether systems, incentives and behaviours are truly integrated or merely assumed to be. Ask yourself whether your company’s current design and ownership genuinely protect its reputation under pressure.

NB: About Derek Smith Jr

Derek Smith Jr has been a governance, risk and compliance professional for more than 20 years with a leadership, innovation and mentorship record. He is the author of ‘The Compliance Blueprint’. Mr Smith is a certified anti-money laundering specialist (CAMS) and holds multiple governance credentials. He can be contacted at hello@pineapplebusinessconsultancy.com